Logical Reasoning

PT106 · S2 · Q25 Marianne is a professional chess player

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Marianne is a professional chess player who hums audibly while playing her matches, thereby distracting her opponents.

Conclusion (therefore / should)

Marianne should not be held responsible for her humming (i.e. she should not be forced to stop it lest she be disqualified).

Intermediate Conclusion

The humming is involuntary.

Evidence (since)

She was unaware of her humming.

Evaluate

Since this is a three part argument, Prem → Intermediate Conc → Main Conc we can think about objecting to either of these moves.

Given that ... she was unaware of the humming, How could we argue ... it's not involuntary?

Does being unaware of something automatically make it involuntary? Or could you be unaware of doing something that you nonetheless have voluntary control over?

I might be unaware that I blink more times per minute than most people do, and we would probably agree that my fast blinking is involuntary, but once someone points it out to me, I could potentially exert some voluntary control. I could think about blinking less frequently, and maybe I could even train myself into having a new, slower involuntary blinking rate.

What about the 2nd reasoning move?

Given that ... her blinking was voluntary How could we argue ... she still should be held responsible for it and be disqualified if she fails to cease humming?

We could probably say,

We might also be able to say,

Goal

Let's look for a way to say that

25.

Which one of the following, if true, most undermines Marianne's argument against the order?

  1. The officials of chess have

    No Impact: outside of matches

    This is saying that chess officials can't mandate behavior outside of matches, but no one was thinking that they can. Marianne isn't saying, "How dare you chess officials tell me I can't hum on my own time", because they weren't saying that. The chess officials are only trying to control her behavior within matches, so this answer isn't objecting to anything said.

    0% picked this

  2. Many of the customs of

    No Impact: amateur matches

    This argument is only about what will or won't be tolerated for professional chess matches. This answer is talking about what goes on at amateur chess matches, and we don't have any interest in that. Whether amateur chess matches do or don't allow humming won't have any impact on this conversation.

    1% picked this

  3. Not all of a person’s

    Too Weak: some

    Any time we see "not all A's are B", we re-write it in the positive, "Some A's are not B". So this is saying that, "Some involuntary actions are actions that people are aware of". The premise of this argument is that Marianne is unaware of her involuntary humming. We might be tempted by this answer, if we thought it was letting us say, "Marianne -- we don't believe you're unaware. Because sometimes people have involuntary actions that they are aware of." 1. it's very, very, very rare to attack a premise, so we shouldn't be attracted to this. We're trying to fight the conclusion and argue that Marianne should be held responsible for her humming, even if we accept that she was initially unaware of it. 2. Since this is only saying "some", it's just saying "There is at least one involuntary action that a person is aware of". Okay, is that claim referring to humming? Maybe, maybe not. Since we don't even know if this answer actually applies to humming, it's very weak innuendo that would really be attacking the idea that Marianne was unaware, rather than attacking the reasoning that, "because she was unaware, she shouldn't be held responsible".

    34% picked this

  4. Correct

    A person who hums involuntarily

    Why this is right

    This allows us to argue that Marianne should be held responsible for her humming. We grant her the truth of her premises. She was unaware of her involuntary humming. But that doesn't mean that we have to just allow her to hum in the competition. Work on yourself, Marianne! You can become more observant about when you start to hum and practice coping behaviors to turn off that humming. This answer has some lovable power to it, because we're saying she can "easily" learn to notice it and control it. So asking her to stop humming, as a precondition of participating in these pro chess tournaments, is not a big ask.

    Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    65% picked this

  5. Not all of Marianne’s opponents

    Too Weak

    Too Weak: some / not all Strengthens, if anything Again, whenever we have "not all A's are B" constructions, we flip them into (some A's are not B). So this answer is saying, "Some of Marianne's opponents are not distracted by her humming." Not only is that super weak, it would also help Marianne to argue that she shouldn't be disqualified for humming.

    1% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free